Scenario Bright Ideas

Summary of Discussion Table Activities at the Preconference "Reaching Students and Faculty: Putting the Information Literacy Standards to Work", ALA National Preconference, San Francisco, June 15, 2001

Ethics in Information:

We would want to work with the faculty first to possibly modify the instruction. Then, students should take a pretest such as one of the online tutorials that show what violates copyright. Our assessment would include 1) Did membership in the community organizations increase? (6 mo. later) 2) Student repeats the pretest with better score. 3) Student can demonstrate that the text/images used in website conform to copyright law.

Web Evaluation Scenarios:

Standards 5 and 3. Cut and Paste A “plagiarism-fear” driven workshop. Comparing databases. Comparing vendors. Regarding assessment various groups mentioned using the "grid" that many librarians have that demonstrate the use of Boolean operations. One person pointed to making a web link called "Student Learning Indicators for Information Literacy". The relationship most in need of addressing is that of the librarian--instructor.

Intro to BI scenario:

Opportunity for a vigorous examination of how to get students involved in professional level gathering of research information (students will be motivated by future hiring opportunities). Chance for Biology faculty to work with librarian in cross-discipline approach to ethics in biology.

Web Evaluation Scenario:

Using standards 3 & 5: Point to make. Web is here to stay, denying students use of resource doesn't solve problem of using dubious information. Training in how to evaluate information is a much better long-term solution. Long term goal: University-wide consensus on appropriate use of web sources, with Psychology Department changing its policy. Strategy: Work within faculty to develop cohesive approach to web use and evaluation instruction.

Task force in faulty senate.

Liaison program to work within individual departments.

Publish and distribute (Web and other medium) library guidelines on this issue

Intro to BI scenario:

Great opportunity to collaborate on instructional design; bio department, local employer and library.---help faculty identify research topics and concepts in library terms and with library resources in mind.

scientific process is specialized version of research process.

use faculty’s questions about ILL to go beyond what’s asked for.

small success bead to greater collaboration.

faculty workshops can open up wider realm of resources to students (work with faculty first).

Tour Scenario:

Set the ground rules with instructor, e.g., no tours, assignment-based, grounded in the content of the course. Our assumptions: upper level literature course, assignment is a research paper which they have started to research, focus is on evaluation of sources, students bring articles to class. Instructional Design: Standard 3 most applicable (and Standard 4). Give pretest to write 1-2 criteria used to select articles; choose 1 student’s article as model; Give checklist of 10 things to look at; Small groups do one article together; Review with class; Show how check list can be used with other sources; Homework for students--to evaluate one of their articles and turn it in; Have students write 1-2 things that they learned about evaluating sources before they leave. Get copies of homework from professor to evaluate as well. Criteria: written evaluation (homework) has to include at least 5 of the 10 checklist items covered in class.

Introductory BI Scenario:

University 4 year: The group thought that it would be a good idea to start with the faculty member’s idea and use their suggestion as a starting place. This would/will give the faculty member some ownership in the process. It was also suggested that the librarian may want to begin with a conversation with the faculty member (perhaps in the faculty member office) to go over the objectives of the class. This meeting would also provide the librarian the chance to impress the faculty member with the library resources and the knowledge of the librarian. Since it appears that the faculty are less than willing to give up their classroom time for library instruction the group looked at other means that the library may be able to provide targeted instruction to this group that didn't include a library session. These ideas included:

Building web pages of canned searches and or targeted Internet pathfinders.

Have the instructor encourage (require) students to make a 15 minute appointment with the librarian to discuss their research.

Create interactive Internet tutorials or modules targeted to the class.

Discuss the student assignments with the faculty beforehand and collaborate to create assignments the students can accomplish using the library resources available to them.

Try to align the information literacy standards with the standards in the discipline and approach the faculty member with suggestions for accomplishing their standards (not the library standards).

It was hoped that if the Librarian started small that they could garner support through word-of-mouth and encourage participation with other instructors. It was also suggested that the library may want to co-sponsor a presentation for the students (in conjunction with the outside lab) on skills graduates should have to succeed in the job market and then provide workshops on these skills.

Tour Scenario: Which Standard? #3 – 2A, 4C, and 5A

1. Analysis: environmental scan: had a senior faculty member well-respected and powerful who wanted to dump his class on us: no respect for/understanding of library and librarians role. Had an accreditation report that we could use as a tool. We asked the faculty some questions to help us frame the "tour": Was there a library assignment, was there something that he would like us to cover? We assumed no answer. Established our goals for the class presentation based on Standard #3 because of the accreditation report.

2. Design and develop: using the learning objectives of the Standard #3 we asked students to review various different types of sources on a similar topic (topic of course). Students were in groups of not more than 4. They are given sources and asked to evaluate and compare (e.g. a magazine article with a reference book) using a checklist (in a handout) that we have demonstrated and discussed with them.

3. Implement: and conduct checks on student learning. As we review and see that students have understood the concepts we can give the group a third source – add difficulty and review concepts another time. We can stop the class and spot check by asking “Who have found something they want to share?”

4. Evaluate: we would assess learning by asking each member of each group to report orally to the class one aspect of the activity. This sharing could also include the rest of the class rather than a passive listening by non-group members. Another aspect of evaluation is that each student will be asked to write what they have learned in class. These will be gathered, summarized and sent back to the faculty member. This latter aspect meets Standard 4 3.d “Communicates clearly and with a style that supports the purposes of the intended audience.” Follow-up with faculty member includes this summary as well as our reactions to the class session. We would want the faculty member to think about doing this again. “During our class presentation we focused on the students’ need to evaluate information as that is an aspect found deficient in the latest accreditation report... We hope that you will notice improvement in student work as a result of our class presentation... We hope that you will consider repeating this session in the next semester when you can be there to see your students in action!”